in the face of a fierce enemy.
PM Brown is such a tough guy.
Posted on 07/28/2007 11:08:20 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Excuse me, but I am not fearful of the English leaving
Iraq. The Times can shove this where Brown...
Sorry, the English want to be liberal wooses.
Well, when you come right down to it, Britain’s help in Iraq was really more valuable for political and morale purposes than for any practical reasons.
Tony Blair may basically be a socialist, but he was brave and ruined his political career by being an ally to us as he did. I appreciate it. But anyone that thinks that Gordon Brown is going to pay any more than ‘lip service’ to alliance to the USA is smoking or ingesting something very potent.
The only thing that surprises me is that his first official act wasn’t to pull all of Britain’s troops home and surrender to to ‘Mohamed’.
Interesting comment.
yitbos
Funnily enough, later on in The Times was a featured article talking about how the US was planning to stage its withdrawal from Iraq. Britain isn’t going to withdraw any time soon and will be in Iraq most likely until the US pulls out. Brown himself has stated that he won’t put a timetable on British troops to withdraw from Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq is less controversial in the UK at present than in the US (where Congress is fighting the Bush administration). Both the main political parties in the UK have said that British troops need to stay in Iraq until the job is done. Maybe your Democrats should take note.
Maybe you should post a picture of the entire US unit that refused to go on convoy duty in Iraq a couple of years ago.
The US is facing far more domestic political opposition to Iraq than that faced by Brown in the UK, where consensus says that we must fulfill our obligations to the Iraqi people. Brown himself has ruled out a timetable for UK troops to be withdrawn.
- Brown was all set to announce a British pull out from Iraq as a big, new broom in office popularity move, but he got temporarily sidetracked by his very own hurricane Katrina with about 3/4 of a million of his fellow citizens standing waist deep in floodwater's. Now that he has managed to convince the citizenry that the whole mess was due to global warming, he can return to his original Iraqi bug out announcement.
Look for it to be trumpeted on the front page of of the NYT real soon.
That’s absolutely wrong. Brown stated before the floods that he will put no timetable on UK troop withdrawals from Iraq and, since he has been in office, the UK has sent more troops to Afghanistan.
Let us not forget - sometimes the media is nothing more than a “useful idiot” for political posturing.
Brown is between a rock and a hard place on this. The truth is, Tony Blair didn’t want to fight in Iraq, but he finally agreed because he was a patriot and he realized that England could not, as Kissinger points out, afford to kick away the “Special Relationship.”
On the other hand, Blair did wreck his career, and Brown won’t want to follow him in that. He is a very ambitious politician.
The obvious thing to do is to hem and haw and delay any definite commitment until November 2008, when he knows who the next president will be. If the Dems win, problem solved. They will cave together. If Fred Thompson wins, then it’s back to the drawing board.
So the obvious answer is obfuscation and delay, but no pull out until the situation is defined next year.
Hey Pyx - why not print some pictures of the US deserters hiding in Canada?
At least the saddo in your pic had the balls to turn up for duty.
This whole thread is hilarious. The US Democrat government is concerned that the UK might at some point want to pull out of Iraq, whilst your Dem government is falling over itself to surrender at the earliest possible date!
And they say Americans can’t understand Irony! :))))
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha! :D
What does England 'feel' about this effete 'Britain'? Also, isn't the main source of oil for the entire planet of interest to someone?
‘What does England ‘feel’ about this effete ‘Britain’? Also, isn’t the main source of oil for the entire planet of interest to someone?’
If Britain, whose govt has refused to set a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq is effete, then the US, with it’s democratic majority in both houses falling over each other to surrender in Iraq first, must be a raving homo with a bushy moustache wearing leather chaps and waving a rainbow flag. . . . . .
That's a proper name and should be capitalized. The Democrat majority. They are not democratic, although they might be the rest.
‘That’s a proper name and should be capitalized.’
No it’s not. By ‘democratic majority’ I mean having more votes than the opposition have, therefore it is not a proper noun and does not need to be capitalised.
As for your political point, I agree without reservation. :)
Observant. Half of what leftist media say is wishful thinking or attempts to push public opinion. Scrutiny is prudent. Ain't FR grand?
yitbos
Thank you for clarifying the meaning of your terminology. Interpretation is nearly impossible given a single usage by a single writer when other usage by other writers varies especially in a secondary context without appropriate available parallel readings.
- That’s all very reassuring - except for the content of the news story that our postings here are based on, which outlines all the evidence leading to what will undoubtedly be a popular bug out announcement by Brown. We shouldn’t have long to wait to see.
Brown is now in Washington and, dollars to donuts, the meeting will conclude with Brown making some squishy statement that Britain’s presence in Iraq is, “under review” followed, as soon as he can get back home, by a bug out announcement, oops, I mean “phased withdrawal”.
The BBC will then give him the full Monica which should see him coast home in the next election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.